Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the cost model (membership-included, no credits) and the notable quirk that annotated-pdf returns a 24-hour download URL rather than an inline payload. It does not restate the 50MB limit or the public-accessibility requirement in prose, but those live in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the action and format list front-loaded and the cost note attached to the first clause. The parenthetical explanations are compact and each carries information; nothing is filler, though the sentence is long and slightly cluttered with em-dash asides.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema that handles return-value documentation, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The one missing piece is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over eap_convert_to_markdown, which matters given near-overlapping siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 would be defensible, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare "Output format" label by explaining what each enum value returns: json is a structured document tree, text is plain text, and annotated-pdf is a layout visualization with labeled structure boxes. That materially improves format selection, which is the only real decision the caller makes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Export a PDF") and enumerates the four output formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling eap_convert_to_markdown, which on its face overlaps, leaving the agent to infer that markdown conversion belongs to the other tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the format list and the note "included with membership, no credits," which tells the agent this call is free of credit cost. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no routing hint toward eap_convert_to_markdown or eap_check_pdf, which is the main gap for a family of five PDF tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.